Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Saw Watchmen about an hour ago. I left it thinking it was like a cake made with the finest ingredients that came out of the oven a flat mess.

It was beautifully shot and the characters were imbued with real emotions - I found myself interested in their lives. But taken as a whole - at the end of the show - I asked myself "why make this?"

The length and depth of a graphic novel do not translate well to a 90 minute medium. Why not spend all that amazing creative energy making something original instead of trying to translate one form of art into another? Kubrick would have understood - make a great film instead of "the perfect translation".

My only answer to "why" is that this is somehow safer. There is an installed fanbase so a greater buzz can be generated. Sad days for films lately - the industry needs a reboot.

I would have to disagree with you, dag. I liked it a great deal. I'm not sure what it is about the film people are not liking, but the largest complaint seems to be that it was too much like the source material. I just don't get that. They changed the ending, but the change they made seemed to make sense to me.

Also, I don't think the industry needs a reboot recently. Last year we had Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, WALL*E, Lake View Terrace. The Dark Knight will probably be regarded as the best superhero movie of all time, and it just came out last summer.

I thought it was great and will definitely see it again while anxiously awaiting the 30 minute longer directors cut. Zack Snyder did an awesome balancing act, keeping the plot moving without having to sacrifice too much of the original story, and it looked perfect, which is rarely the case in comic book movies. Nice performances and a good score (except for the cheesy guitar stuff and some of the played-to-death licensed songs).

It's also nice to see something so dark and morally conflicted on screen. I took pleasure knowing that others in the room would be frustrated with the awesomely atypical and unpredictable ending.

It would have been nice if they'd added a couple minutes of footage throughout the film to set up the New Frontiersman, so that the very end would have more meaning. It also would have been nice to work in a little bit of the newspaper man and his relationship with his comic book addicted non-customer.

Leaving out the pirate tale seemed like a necessity and the major change at the end was actually pretty cool - maybe even an improvement.

I really don't get why so many are panning this film.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

It wasn't horrible. I thought the performances were generally good.

It was a little pretentious. There was all this iconic music (Sound of Silence, All Along the Watchtower) laid over slow motion scenes of men in spandex.

How about this - I liked it better than Batman.

Being a big fan of the the graphic novel (aka. comic book) it was a good movie, but I couldn't help notice it was a bit confusing to people who had no prior knowledge of it. Either way; Rorschach kicks ass.

I actually heard a fairly surprising review from the friend of mine who turned me on to Watchmen in the first place. He felt that the film was overall very good, but that the source material just didn't seem quite as revolutionary or relevant as it did when he first read it in the 90's. Many of its innovative aspects are now staples of the genre, some of the complexities seemed too contrived and convenient by today's standards, and the horrifying ending doesn't seem quite as horrifying after 911.

Does anyone else who read this back in the day have similar feelings?

I only read it last year, so I don't have the luxury of that kind of contrast.

Your friend is right.

I read Watchmen about 2 years ago. It was clear back then that in its prime it would have resonated more because of the Cold war setting it takes place in, how do you relate that to a post cold war world we live in now?

However I still enjoyed it as it was anti-superhero comic book, it took all these old stereo types of superheros and threw them out the window. In the same way Frank Miller's the Dark Knight did.

stereotype is one word. Ahem.

I always wondered why Moore didn't have his characters kill Veidt at the end. Even if they were willing to agree that Veidt's terrorism was a net positive, he's still a mass murderer who had no problems killing off his old friends and would have few qualms about doing it again if it fit his agenda. I'd think Rorchach would be willing to keep his mouth shut on the condition that Dr. Bluecock ended Veidt's life.

Yes, I know I'm talking about imaginary people.

Thoughts?

I saw it last night because although I resent them making it I wanted to see it before it left theatres. I still wish they hadn't made it into a movie. Primarily I object to the added violence and ham-fisted use of music. Also, that sex scene, while enjoyable, was a bit explicit for my cinematic taste. She was getting fucked pretty hard at the end there. Have to admit it's a visually stimulating movie but I found many parts fell surprisingly flat and it lacked coherence in the third act.